Commonwealth v. Nash
338 S.W.3d 264
Ky.2011Background
- Anthony Nash was convicted in 1993 of two counts of third-degree sodomy and later of burglary; he was released in stages and eventually fell under SORA post-release.
- In 2007 Nash was indicted for non-compliance with SORA and for PFO II based on alleged changes of address and prior convictions.
- Nash entered a conditional guilty plea to failure to comply with SORA (first offense, Class D) and PFO II, reserving the right to appeal the indictment denial on ex post facto grounds.
- The 2006 SORA amendments increased penalties for first offenses and expanded residency rules; Nash had already completed relevant terms before those amendments.
- The trial court sentenced Nash to five years for the Class D felony, enhanced to ten years by PFO II; Nash argued he was never legally required to register.
- The Court of Appeals reversed Nash’s 07-CR-00034 conviction; the Kentucky Supreme Court ultimately held Nash was never required to register under any SORA version and vacated the judgment and dismissed the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Nash ever required to register under any SORA version? | Nash argues he never met registration obligations under prior or amended SORA. | Commonwealth contends amendments apply and Nash could be guilty. | Nash was never required to register; indictment must be dismissed. |
| Does ex post facto apply to the 2006 SORA amendments as applied to Nash? | Nash preserved ex post facto challenge to amendments. | Amendments do not violate ex post facto as applied to prior violations. | Ex post facto issue not necessary to resolve; the core ruling dismisses the indictment. |
| Should the conviction be affirmed given Nash’s non-registration status? | Conviction rests on registration violation. | Conviction stands under amended SORA provisions. | Indictment and conviction vacated; dismissal ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Commonwealth, 308 S.W.3d 661 (Ky.2010) (upholding constitutionality of 2006 SORA amendments)
- Hyatt v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 566 (Ky.2002) (pre-2006 SORA interpretations and registration guidance)
- Newman v. Commonwealth, 145 S.W.3d 416 (Ky.App.2004) (precedent on SORA registration obligations)
- Peterson v. Shake, 120 S.W.3d 707 (Ky.2003) (statutory interpretation of SORA amendments)
- Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 278 S.W.3d 145 (Ky.2009) (standard for manifest injustice and appellate review)